Standish vs Standish: Landmark ruling on matrimonial property

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Standish vs Standish has significantly reshaped how Family Law Solicitors approach financial remedies on divorce, particularly regarding the treatment of non-matrimonial assets. This landmark case offers essential guidance on distinguishing between pre-marital wealth and matrimonial property, delivering fresh clarity on the sharing principle in high-value divorce settlements.

In this article, we explore the key facts, legal developments, judicial reasoning, and implications for clients facing complex financial proceedings following separation or divorce.

Legal context: The role of non-matrimonial assets in divorce

Before Standish vs Standish, the boundaries between matrimonial property and non-matrimonial assets had been evolving but were not consistently applied. Courts historically leaned towards fairness and the sharing principle, often classifying transferred or gifted wealth as jointly owned, even where it originated before marriage. However, the decision in this case clarifies when and how non-matrimonial assets become part of the ‘matrimonial pot’ – a critical concern in financial remedies on divorce.

Case summary: Standish vs Standish

Mr. and Mrs. Standish married in 2005 and separated in 2020. Their total assets at the point of separation exceeded £130 million, the majority of which Mr. Standish acquired prior to marriage through inheritance and business activities.

In 2017, Mr. Standish transferred approximately £77.8 million in investments and shares to Mrs. Standish as part of a tax-efficient estate planning exercise intended to support a future trust for their children – a trust that was never executed. The treatment of these assets became the central dispute in their divorce proceedings.

High Court ruling

• The trial judge ruled that the 2017 transfers had “matrimonialised” the assets, making them subject to equal division under the sharing principle.
• Mrs. Standish was awarded £45 million – approximately 34% of the total assets – with a 60/40 division favouring Mr. Standish due to the pre-marital nature of much of the wealth.

Court of Appeal decision

• The Court found that the source of the assets – not merely their legal title or ownership – was the determining factor in classification.
• Only 25% of the assets were considered matrimonial, reducing Mrs. Standish’s award to £25 million – a historic reduction in UK divorce jurisprudence.

Supreme Court ruling

• The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment, dismissing Mrs. Standish’s appeal.
• The key legal principle established is that non-matrimonial assets remain protected unless there is:
  1. Clear intention by the original owner to share the asset.
  2. Consistent treatment of the asset as jointly owned over time.

Legal principles confirmed in Standish vs Standish

This case solidifies several important principles in English family law regarding financial remedies:

• Source trumps title: Assets acquired before marriage or through inheritance are presumed to be non-matrimonial.
• Transfers for tax planning: These do not necessarily change the status of an asset unless accompanied by intent and joint treatment.
• Matrimonialisation test: Intention and conduct must both be clearly established to convert non-matrimonial assets into matrimonial property.
• Equality applies only to matrimonial assets: Only jointly acquired wealth is subject to equal division.

These developments reinforce a narrower approach to what is considered shareable property under the sharing principle.

Scenarios: How assets are treated post-Standish

Case scenario

Mr. A, a business owner who accumulated wealth before his marriage, established a family trust and gifted shares to his spouse for estate planning. Following separation, the spouse claimed a share of the trust assets. Citing Standish vs Standish, the court found that there was no consistent treatment of the assets as matrimonial nor a clear intention to share. The assets remained classified as non-matrimonial, significantly limiting the spouse’s claim.

Expert insights

• Pre- and post-nuptial agreements: These are vital tools for protecting non-matrimonial wealth.
• Asset documentation: Maintain clear records that demonstrate your intent – particularly when transferring or using personal wealth within a marriage.
• Financial planning: Tax-motivated transfers must be managed carefully, as inconsistent asset treatment can lead to disputes.

Our team of expert Family Law Solicitors can help you understand and support you through the entire process of divorce – and aim to provide you with clear, sound and practical advice.

Whether you wish to begin the application yourself, or you are the respondent to the application, we aim to provide our clients with tailored and comprehensive advice. Our family divorce solicitors are able to advise you on the most suitable way forward, taking into account your particular circumstances.

Contact us for more information.

Benefits and challenges after Standish vs Standish

• Benefits:
  • Greater clarity for asset protection during divorce.
  • Improved predictability in financial remedy proceedings.
  • Encouragement of pre- and post-nuptial agreements.
• Challenges:
  • Spouses with less wealth may struggle to prove matrimonialisation.
  • Complex evidentiary burdens on demonstrating intent.
  • More litigation over asset classification expected.

FAQs

What is the Standish vs Standish case about?

The Standish vs Standish case clarifies how English courts treat non-matrimonial assets in divorce. The Supreme Court ruled that assets acquired before marriage or through inheritance remain separate unless there is a clear, consistent intention to share them.

What is meant by “matrimonialisation” of assets?

Matrimonialisation refers to when non-matrimonial assets are treated during marriage in a way that converts them into matrimonial property. This requires both:

1. Clear intention to share the asset.
2. Consistent joint use or treatment during the marriage.

How does this affect pre-marital wealth?

Pre-marital wealth is better protected following Standish vs Standish. Unless there is explicit evidence of sharing, such wealth remains separate from matrimonial claims.

What’s the impact of transferring assets for tax planning purposes?

Transfers purely for tax planning do not change the classification of the asset. If there’s no intent to share and no consistent treatment as shared, the asset remains non-matrimonial.

Are pre-nuptial agreements more enforceable now?

Yes. Pre- and post-nuptial agreements are now even more crucial in proving intent regarding the treatment of assets, especially pre-marital and inherited wealth.

This article was produced on the 29th August 2025 for information purposes only and should not be construed or relied upon as specific legal advice.